ISIS supporters London 2
Freedom of Religion

The Church must challenge the State's fuzzy 'British Values'

 

Fundamental British values have been defined by the Government as: “the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.” According to Andrew Gilligan’s piece in the Telegraph on Home Office plans for the mandatory registration of all faith leaders, extremism is defined by the Government as: “the vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs.”

So, in a nutshell, extremism includes vocal opposition to respecting Mohammed.

Yes, that’s the inflammatory nugget of ‘religious hatred’. It would be just as easy to say that Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, being a vocal supporter of IRA bombs and bullets, is, by this definition, an extremist, but slightly less interesting from a theological point of view. How does the Government propose to force secular-humanist-atheists to “respect” any religion, let alone a virulent strand of one which seeks to behead or bomb us all to jannah (or, being infidel, more likely jahannam)?

Is it ‘disrespectful’ to call Mohammed a terrorist? Read the Qur’an (in particular 8.17; 33.26; 8.67). If the pillaging, slaughter, murder and rape are redolent of the Islamic State, it is because ISIS derives its polity and notions of summary justice from their prophet’s example. Is it ‘disrespectful’ to use a lower-case ‘p’? Is it ‘disrespectful’ to quote the Qur’an, Sunnah and Hadith without expository caveats or examination of their Sitz im Leben? Is it ‘disrespectful’ to draw Mohammed?

Is it ‘disrespectful’ to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ? How, then, will Jews and Muslims ever be free to articulate their belief in the oneness of God? How will the Abrahamic faiths ever be free to highlight the biological impossibility, not to say absurdity, of the existence of Ganesh? How will anyone ever again be free to to proclaim the unequivocal scientific fact that carpenters from Nazareth don’t get resurrected?

What is this “respect” imposed by the state which coerces and compels “a positive feeling of admiration or deference for a person (/entity/religion)? How can the state constrain or suspend the freedoms of belief, speech and expression to the extent that all must manifest “a positive feeling of admiration or deference” for cultic sky fairies, idols, false prophets or spiritual fetishes?

Surely the most fundamental of all British values is liberty; and religious liberty, in particular. Isn’t that our historic, bothersome and hard-won birthright? Why does it not appear in the Government’s definition? How is freedom not fundamental to British values, culture and tradition? Forget “respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs”. We must focus instead on the freedom of religion, which cannot be reduced to the freedom of worship.

Freedom of religion includes the right not only to have a faith, but to manifest it and propagate it and witness to it in the public arena, if desired. It also includes the right to change beliefs and religious affiliation, if desired. This is what liberal democracies should proclaim and propagate throughout the world. Freedom of worship is practised in oppressive and tyrannical countries, and in particular those influenced by Islam and atheistic Communism. You may be free to be a Christian (Jew/Jehovah’s Witness, etc), but you are not free to manifest your faith in the public arena or share your beliefs with others. In Islamic countries, Muslims are free to be fully Muslim, including public displays and lawful proselytism. But there is no mercy for those who try to leave Islam.

Or criticise it.

There must be “tolerance” of its precepts and “respect” for its prophet.

We may (indeed must), out of our boundless love and common humanity, respect (indeed love) our neighbour. But nowhere is it written and by no social contract are we obliged to respect their gods or tolerate their beliefs. The Church must robustly remind the State of the true foundation of British values and the essential cornerstone of our liberty – before we are all obliged to profess positive feelings of admiration for the prince of the power of the air, and bow the knee to the father of lies.

  • bmudmai

    The problem is there are probably plenty of Bishops and Clergy who agree that Christianity shouldn’t be expressed in public sphere etc. And are universalist so think there’s no need to believe in Jesus and declare him as the only way. They probably agree with this secular-humanist approach.

  • cacheton

    ‘We must focus instead on the freedom of religion, which cannot be reduced to the freedom of worship.

    Freedom of religion includes the right not only to have a faith, but to manifest it and propagate it and witness to it in the public arena, if desired. It also includes the right to change beliefs and religious affiliation, if desired.’

    But what if your religious belief explicitly prohibits changing your religious affiliation, and your book of words says changing your religion should be punished by death?

    Freedom of religion is not sustainable if people’s religious beliefs are not compatible with the value system of the society which is granting that freedom. Therefore it will inevitably be reduced, and is being reduced, to freedom of worship.

  • alternative_perspective

    Seriously, what’s the point. The atheists are creating an Orwellian nightmare before our very eyes and the masses seem not to care or are totally onboard with it.

    These people are like Pharaoh, the very truth itself hardens their hearts. God’s will is revolting to them. Unfortunately they will eventually learn that God will not be mocked. Truth will prevail and God’s will, shall be established. How sad it is that this once great Christian nation has become such a confused and disjointed mess.

    I just hope the people do not require the mosaic plagues to bring them to their senses.

    Please Lord have mercy.

    • Dreadnaught

      the masses seem not to care
      The pomposity of the A_P. Unless you are of the nobility – you are of the “masses” yourself.

      • steroflex

        “The atheists are creating an Orwellian nightmare”
        Comrade, I shall have to arrest you for xenophobia. The EU is firmly Christian.

        • Dreadnaught

          You have been booked in to Room 101- have a pleasant stay.

    • sarky

      Gods will revolting?? Wouldn’t go that far, just plain meaningless will do.

  • IanCad

    As in the last century, the New World twice came to the rescue of the Old, so it would seem yet another bail-out is needed in this current age.

    In the United States it is perfectly legal to burn the Bible. So it is, although with considerably more danger, also permissible to do the same with the Koran.

    Even the flag is given no special protection. There are no sanctions against stomping, tearing it, burning or using it as toilet paper. Might get some red-blooded folk mighty angry, but legally, it is not prosecuteable.

    Then there is what they can say. Anything! Anything at all, as long as it isn’t a direct incitement to harm.

    Sturdy folk those Yanks. Pity is, the liberties they enjoy and embace are English liberties.

    The treasonous wretches behind the subject of today’s post, would, in a more vigourous day, be tarred and feathered. No promotion to the HoL for them.

    We need The First Amendment. Please send it over so it may it be presented before Parliament.

    What’s that!? It didn’t get a second reading!

    To Arms!!

    Oh Dear! Please may we have your Second Amendment as well.

  • Jon Sorensen

    Yes, please don’t call Jesus as God anymore. It is disrespectful to Muslims. And please knocked if of with disrespecting Dawkins. It is disrespectful according to my beliefs.

    • Phil R

      Ah Dawkins…….

      of “there is probably no God” fame

      • steroflex

        Is he still alive?

  • Excellent post, YG. I would argue that British values must never be divorced from Biblical Christianity. The 1688 Coronation Oath Act, still in force, is the constitutional foundation for this.

    Yes, we always grant tolerance to others and the freedom to worship, but this should never mean that there must be no national and public identification with Christian truth. For example, Britain should honour the Lord’s Day, and not defile it with unnecessary commercial activity, because this is identifying with the holy law of the one true God.

    When the King called for a national day of prayer at the time of the Battle of Britain, this was a calling out for mercy to the Trinitarian God who governs the affairs of the nations. He heard the people’s prayers and our country was rescued in that battle. Air Chief Marshall Sir Hugh Dowding himself accredited the outcome of the conflict in the skies to the nationwide praying.

    Secular notions of tolerance are not enough. We must as a nation identify with the God who has revealed Himself in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    • IanCad

      Pretty good post apart from the conflation of the Commandments of God with Sunday worship. Something pagan to its socks.

      • Thank you for your comment. In polite disagreement I cite the following :

        “Upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them” (Acts 20:7).

        “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him” (1 Corinthians 16:2).

        “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day” (Revelation 1:10).

        • IanCad

          None of which have anything to do with the Sabbath Commandment.
          And so to bed.

          • Two of which deal explicitly with the 4th commandment and the change made by the Lord of the sabbath to the first day in remembrance of His glorious resurrection (in friendly discussion).

          • IanCad

            The brevity of my 11th hour post should in no way be taken as rudeness on my part.

            The subject is of great importance and has been mooted about on this blog over and over again. The last time, as I recall, with the intrepid “Pubcrawler” and the celebrated “Busy Mum.” I do not waste any opportunities to proffer my view when the occasion arises, as I believe the embrace of Sunday is to honour the traditions of men rather than the Law of God.

            Like it or not; Sunday sacredness is unbiblical. The first text you cite is a meeting after the Sabbath. Recall if you will, that sunrise and sunset dictated the bounds of the holy day.

            Quite simply Acts 20:7 refers to a meeting after the Sabbath, prior to Paul’s voyage to Miletus.

            Similarly, Corinthians amplifies the theme of that day set aside by God. It is for worship, not business.

            Returning to the “Lord’s Day.” Where in the Bible do you find even a hint that Christ changed the day? Indeed the culmination of the passion of our Lord is evidence of the immutability of the decalogue.

            Protestantism has swallowed hook line and sinker the Roman act of changing times and laws.

            Ian

          • Dear Ian, Your comments are appreciated. We shall obviously have to agree to differ on this, but I do think it is more than a secondary issue.

            You say there is no hint of the change of the day in the NT. There is also no distinctive reference to the Trinity either, but it is nevertheless indisputably taught by implication. Likewise with the first day being the Lord’s Day.

            In any case, in Hebrews 4:9 the Greek ‘sabbatismos’ means the keeping of the sabbath. There remains a keeping of the sabbath, because Christ has entered into His rest, having completed the work of salvation. When did He complete that work and enter into His rest? – on the first day of the week, not on the seventh day.

            As the risen God-man He is the Lord of the sabbath, giving to it its new character. Just as the old covenant sabbath marked the creation of the world, so the new sabbath marks the creation of the new heavens and new earth which is the kingdom of God.

            To still adhere to the Saturday sabbath would mean that under the new covenant we remember the earth’s creation, but not the mighty work of salvation completed by the resurrection on the first day of the week.

            The people under the old covenant had the privilege of a precious day of rest. We are no less privileged under the better covenant, but our Lord’s Day is now of much fuller meaning.

            Yours in brotherly love.

          • IanCad

            Rev. Peter,

            We could go on and on and round and round. We differ.
            We both have the Blessed Hope, a lively faith, and are willing to proclaim our Saviour.
            The disputation will, no doubt, arise on another thread.

            Till then.

            Blessings to you and your congregation.

  • Johnny Rottenborough

    The Church must robustly remind the State of the true foundation of British values and the essential cornerstone of our liberty

    Wherever in the world Christianity co-exists with Islam, the liberty of Christians, and all non-Muslims, suffers. Through its welcome of Muslim immigration, and through its invention of the sin of racism to silence opposition to race and faith replacement (the sin of racism being the spiritual arm of the state’s hate laws), the Church of England has, therefore, been helping to undermine the foundations of our liberty since the middle of the last century.

    As presently led, the church is no champion of liberty. The Prime Minister need not live in fear of the Archbishop of Canterbury riding into Downing Street on a white charger, bearing the sword of truth. In any case, to champion liberty after decades of undermining it, the church would be forced to admit its deliberate betrayal of the English and of Christianity itself. I cannot imagine the pitiful souls who pass these days for bishops having the moral courage to do that.

  • len

    British values were based on our solid Christian foundation.
    Now the Foundations are all but destroyed there are no core British values its all ‘relative’ now the tide comes in with on set of values and goes out with another.
    With ‘no absolutes’ anything goes ….

    • steroflex

      “Christian foundation” rubbish!
      The CoE was the established church and what it said was what the government thought.
      Now it is no more. So who is in charge of morals?

      • len

        Gods moral Law stands and always will when we break it we suffer…We can deny or refuse to obey God`s Moral law but that does not negate it…

  • Hugh Jeego

    There is a dichotomy here: The definition of British Values states they include respect and tolerance for all faiths etc., some of which include tenets which are in direct opposition to other articles which comprise the given definition of British Values, in some cases in fact to all of the other “British Values”. So, one of my British Values means that I necessarily have to respect those who wish to live by values which will bring them into direct conflict with those living according to British Values. My values indicate that I must not only tolerate, but respect, those who wish to prevent me living according to my values. How’s that going to work in the real world? Why should I have respect for someone who wants me to live under a set of laws which I find at odds with my values (my British Values, in fact)?

  • Orwell Ian

    This drive for “respect” is mandatory self-censorship. A sticking plaster to cover the running sore of “community cohesion” (lack of). A few preferably high profile prosecutions will be brought to whip the masses into silence and keep the lid on festering unrest for a while longer. What are being passed off as British values are nothing of the kind. This state orthodoxy flows from the EU. Similar pressure exists on the continent. Marine Le Pen is being prosecuted for describing the takeover of streets for Muslim prayers as occupation of territory without tanks. As she herself says, “Those who denounce the illegal behavior of fundamentalists are more likely to be sued than the fundamentalists who behave illegally.”

  • David

    The customs and generally publicly, widely held beliefs of this country are derived largely from Christianity, plus a dash of thinking from the Reformation and the Enlightenment. By and large, an accommodation had been found between those forces, and we were a reasonably tolerant country, within our traditions, until about the 1970s.

    But no, further organic, slowly evolving change was not sufficient for “progressive” people. So the oh so “clever” intellectuals, the liberal -leftists mainly, had to throw it all up in the air. But hey, what is this now ? For in landing the pieces are not coming together very well, are they ?

    The atheists and Humanists, who for half a century or more now, have attacked the ancient, largely Christian base of our long-existing nation state, are creating a nightmarish scenario based on vague laws, ripe for misinterpretation and political influence, that themselves depend upon internally contradictory “values”, hastily scribbled on the back of fag packet, with absolutely no philosophical depth at all.

    Either this country recognises and respects its Judaeo-Christian cultural heritage and legal framework, or else it morphs into a sort of heavily policed “Animal Farm”. George Orwell was unbelievably prescient.

    Oh what a mess the anti-Christians, the trendy liberal-left, the aggressive atheists, Humanists and other secularists are making having forced the country outside its protective wrapper of well though through, philosophically coherent Christian based culture. It was not perfect, but it worked tolerably well, and it was not resistant to further gradual, organic change and accommodations. But now like Peter Hitchins, it is all now so desperate that I have gone past sobbing for its demise, and can but laugh at their pathetic attempts to manage the rapidly degenerating mess that they have created. As a nation our foolish rejection of the ways of the Christian God has put us under his judgement – but the destruction is not from God, because ignoring his advice, we are simply destroying ourselves. We are creating our own Hell, here on earth.
    There is no health now in this nation, and as has been true for the last half century, it must either turn back, or perish.

    • Jon Sorensen

      “Oh what a mess the anti-Christians, the trendy liberal-left, the aggressive atheists, Humanists and other secularists are making having forced the country outside its protective wrapper of well though through, philosophically coherent Christian based culture.”
      Christians are so upset when they slowly lose their privileges which they still have plenty.

      • Dear Jon, Courteously, it is not privilege which we Christians contend for, but the righteouness which alone can exalt a nation (Proverbs 14:34). The Christian gospel is like salt, a purifying influence on a society.

        God ordains the cirumstances of nations. Deuteronomy 28 , for example, clearly teaches that economic prosperity, social stability and the absence of war are conditional upon national obedience to the commandments of God.

        • Jon Sorensen

          OT also teaches killing of heretics and nonbelievers, slavery laws, orders genocides. In fact just expressing your Christian ideas 2500 years ago in Judea would have got you killed. If you only pick and choose isolated verses anything can be made to look good.

      • Busy Mum

        What privileges?

        • Jon Sorensen

          Blue laws, Centuries of Blasphemy laws changed now to The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, Right to discriminate when hiring, tax breaks, easy account laws for religious organisation, reserve space in House of Lords for some Church of England bishops, Queens as defender and leader of your faith. The list is endless… It’s so easy to be a Christian.

          • Busy Mum

            What religion would you like the Queen to follow?
            All employers have always discriminated when hiring – who would bother to run a business if you couldn’t select your staff?
            Blasphemy laws obliged all, including atheists to refrain from mocking sincerely held religious beliefs, leading to far greater respect than there has been since 2006.
            Church of England Bishops do not necessarily represent Christians; they have often betrayed us and I would be just as glad as you to see these office-holders removed.
            And please tell me about any tax-breaks we might be entitled to so that I can take advantage.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “All employers have always discriminated when hiring”
            Nice try. Not according to beliefs and gender. Churches can do that. Don’t confuse discrimination and selection. Please try again.

            “Blasphemy laws obliged all, including atheists to refrain from mocking sincerely held religious beliefs, leading to far greater respect”
            Why did ideas needed extra protection? Shouldn’t idea earn their respect?

            “please tell me about any tax-breaks”
            Most of the churches and church run businesses don’t pay income or property tax in western world. Many western countries have special deduction for pastors and member of church.

      • Sirbastion

        Jon, I don’t believe David’s lament has anything to do with Christians feeling sorry for themselves over loosing “privileges”, but it is rather about the great sorrow a Christian is overcome with over seeing a nation continuously turning it’s back on the Lord God, whose past blessings seem to have been entirely forgotten. I too feel this sorrow.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Christian influence is waning and the quality of life even for minorities is better than ever. People are healthier, live longer and committing less crimes and our world is the safest ever. The sorrow is probably more religious and as “turning it’s back on the Lord God” seems produce better long term outcome for the nation.

          • Sirbastion

            How do you equate the waning Christian influence with health & increased longevity?

            “quality of life even for minorities is better than ever” ?

            Less crimes: politicians regularly engage in exchanges of crime statistics to prove their opposite views. Statistics can be cooked in many different ways to produce a conclusion of one’s particular fancy so I’m afraid there isn’t a great deal of credibility in the claim of “less crime”.

            I don’t mean to be discourteous but to claim “our world is the safest ever” appears to me to be utterly delusional, especially in light of the powder keg that is the Middle East.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “How do you equate the waning Christian influence with health & increased longevity?”
            I think those are related by education and increase of scientific knowledge.

            “quality of life even for minorities is better than ever” ?
            being LGBT or member of minority religion or non-religious does not get you in trouble any more

            Less crimes; Sounds like you don’t believe in stats. You can look long term crime rates (200, 100 or 50 year stats) of for example murder rates and those are lower in Western world.

            “”our world is the safest ever” appears to me to be utterly delusional, especially in light of the powder keg that is the Middle East.”
            Interesting that you point to the problem of violence in the most religious area in the planet.

            I hate to break it to you but the Middle East problems did not just start those have been there for loooong time. But human on human violence has declined for a long time to all time low. Pinker made that point in “The Better Angels of Our Nature”. This improvement has come when the influence of religion has declined.

          • Sirbastion

            Middle East conflicts have been ongoing for thousands of years, indeed, but there is more at stake now than ever, for example, the type of weaponry available to various parties involved are far more destructive to all of us than in previous times. That and the scores of other high risk threats throughout the world, and present conflagrations, do not constitute a “safest ever” world.
            The religious inclusion in the conflict is not Christian. Your point doesn’t strengthen your case.
            The rapidly advancing licentious LGBT agenda, which is due to a departure from Christian influenced laws is not a positive example, it is instead an example of the debasement of this nation’s, and leader’s, moral characters.
            As for the other replies, I refer to my previous comments.

          • Jon Sorensen

            “do not constitute a “safest ever” world”
            Human on Human violence is now the lowest ever – so it is safest ever.

            “The religious inclusion in the conflict is not Christian.”
            Several Christian countries whose leader took instructions from Christian God started bombing Syria for example. You should listen what Tony Abbott said. So Christians are involved.

            “The rapidly advancing licentious LGBT agenda, which is due to a departure from Christian influenced laws is not a positive example”
            Getting rid of discrimination is positive. I’m not surprised that Christians support discrimination.

  • Coniston

    “extremism includes vocal opposition to respecting Mohammed.” I understand, from the internet, that in Canada it is proposed by the government that any criticism of Islam will be deemed a hate crime and the perpetrator will be prosecuted.

  • CliveM

    Since when has banning free speech been a British value?

    Since when has state control over belief been a British value?

    And if tollerance is a British value, how stupid do you have to be to believe that banning free speech and controlling what people think, doesn’t fly in the face of this?

    So expect tollerance if you adhere to what your told to say or think. Otherwise………………

    Ironically for all the legitimate concern about IS, it appears that the Govt maybe the biggest threat to our way of life and our ‘British’ values.

    • Jon Sorensen

      “Since when has banning free speech been a British value?”
      Blasphemy laws have been British Christian tradition.

      • CliveM

        And as is usual, so as not to miss the opportunity to make a cheap jibe, you miss the point.

        • Jon Sorensen

          Well since when has free speech been a British value?

          … It more like censorship has a long history in the UK

          • CliveM

            And again you don’t get the point.

  • prompteetsincere

    “British” values once were pre-eminently and, in the final analysis, Biblical.
    “All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand” that “in one fell swoop”
    struck at the very domestic foundation of them as per February 6, 2013. “O hell-kyte!”

  • Demon Teddy Bear

    I suppose once you import hordes of aliens, such discussions are inevitable, and tolerated with amusement by those who stuffed the rest of us.
    Kick them all out.

    • steroflex

      To Auschwitz?

      • Demon Teddy Bear

        Only for you and those like you. For, unlike the victims of Auschwitz, you deserve it.

        • Mike Stallard

          Heidrich dealt with the enormous number of Displaced Persons by a master stroke. He put them all on trains and transported them to the Promised Land – which, as we now know, turned out to be the gas chambers. Hence my remark.
          If you have lots and lots of unwanted people sloshing round, someone is going to come up with a final solution sooner or later.

          • Demon Teddy Bear

            Talk of Auschwitz is merely cynical manipulation by traitors. This is a simple issue of border control.

          • steroflex

            Well, I have to disagree really.
            Europe is an enormous place with a lot of very independent states within one big area. The border simply cannot be controlled because the geography will not allow it.
            People can get in quite easily by sea or land really. Block one entrance, and the flood simply goes round until it finds another hole in the wall.
            Add to that Mrs Merkel and her Lutheran upbringing and bingo!

            PS Is you language always like that – even at home? What does you wife have to say about it if it is?

  • steroflex

    I am deeply sorry to have to announce that the CoE is not what it used to be way back in the 1938 debacle. It has no power whatsoever today. Nic. Zilch. Nada.
    It has very strong views on sodomy. It has enormous views on the equality of gender. It has a lot in common with the secularists.
    The rest of us just soldier on as best we can.
    And God still rules, just as he always has.

  • DanJ0

    We tolerate political diversity well enough under the notion of freedom of speech, freedom of association, and so on, even if advocates of (say) communism are advocating for a fundamental change in our society and to our way of life. So why not religious diversity even some religious beliefs are opposed to our current way of life? Freedom of speech is a social good, I’d say, because it allows ideas to be challenged. That some Muslims argue in public for (say) sharia law ought to be an opportunity for others to argue in public against it, and for the general public to hear the arguments as a result.

    • Inspector General

      You suggest arguing against muslims. Don’t actually think they’re used to that. Not on a long term basis. What do you think?

      • DanJ0

        They need to get used to it pronto, and we need to be comfortable doing it.

        • “Je suis DanJo” ….

          • DanJ0

            I make a point of criticising Islam on my Facebook page every so often to reserve the right to do so.

          • We should all do it – often – but use reason and avoid obvious insults. However, Islam, it seems, is intolerant of criticism which, by definition, is regarded as insult. It tolerates no attempts to persuade its followers to abandon or even adapt their beliefs to Western values. Look what happened after Pope Benedict’s reasoned critique at the Regensburg address in September 2006. There was a wilful misunderstanding of his comments and a refusal to accept a gracious clarification.

          • Phil R

            Keep it mild or you will end up minus a head in some river somewhere and I will have nobody to argue with

            (Sarky does not count)

        • Inspector General

          Alas. All is lost. You see, successful races have refined argument into negotiation. That’s why they are successful. The less achieving races have not. That’s why they are heading for Europe. So, the latter continue to argue. And when they run out of patience, which will be very shortly, they no longer argue with you because you are dead, courtesy them.

    • Dreadnaught

      Whats the point in claiming we have freedom to speak when it is being muted by the potential of the outrage manifested by the rule of the mob.

      • IanCad

        As in “Referendum”

        • Dreadnaught

          What do you think a ballot is?

          • IanCad

            The right to elect your ,“Representative”

          • Dreadnaught

            Its a legitimate form of democratic principle to consult the plebs when party politics will not permit the view of the common people to be consulted.

          • IanCad

            Hogwash! If, as your many wise and worldly posts would indicate, you hold a somewhat dismal view of your fellow electorates, then, let me proffer the following:
            The average voter is pretty dim. It would then follow that half of the electorate is even stupider.
            Dreadnaught, are you really willing to cast the future of this land upon the whims and fancies of such a lot?

          • Dreadnaught

            demos
            ˈdiːmɒs/
            noun
            the common people of an ancient Greek state.
            the populace of a democracy as a political unit.

          • IanCad

            We are not a democracy. We are a constitutional monarchy.

          • Dreadnaught

            Whatever –

          • A “representative” democracy with a constitutional monarch.

      • DanJ0

        That’s why the freedom is protected by a (qualified) right. However, we must defend that right. The necessarily qualified nature of it means that we must actively argue for it at the edges.

  • Inspector General

    Ah, the government is calling on British traditions of tolerance and respect to keep a lid on our interesting mix of civilised and non-civilised peoples in this land. Naturally, it’s not going to work. There is nothing at all government can do to enforce its will, save for imprisoning a few token miscreants. (Miscreants from their point of view, that is, not from ours). Who knows, our very own beloved Cranmer could be on that list of theirs.

    We know it’s not going to work because a very large number of alien people allowed into the UK have no shining heritage of tolerance and respect themselves. Does this mean they are going to have to take these attributes on? Surely not, for that is not how multiculturalism works. Multiculturalism is a benefit, not a burden, to the country we are reminded again and it MUST be allowed to thrive. (‘again’ being the operative word here. As memories of the fate of Fusilier Rigby fade, as they will, the purveyors of this erroneous message are getting right back in there, the more sharp of us will have noticed).

    So, how far will the government go to impose its will on us all – ‘all’ here including civilised and non-civilised alike. Well, they won’t go anywhere, because they can’t. They will however tell you that they are doing their utmost to keep a lid on it all. They will tell you that they won’t let us down. They will tell you that you must vote them in again. Because they are keeping a lid on it all. They will tell you that.

  • Inspector General

    News item today. There were more than 1,000 newly recorded cases of female genital mutilation (FGM) in England between April and June, NHS data reveals. God’s truth! That’s 4000 a year. You could end up with schools in the ethnic areas where not one girl has been untouched in that way..

    And the number of arrests, actual and pending, following from that outrageous discovery are….

    Looks like another ‘British tradition’ is in the forming. That’s what happens when you object to alien ways, but aren’t going to do anything serious about it, as you might upset the mutual respect and tolerance which apparently keeps our fractured society together…

    Vote UKIP chaps. Time is short. It’s our final hope…

    • Jon Sorensen

      “There were more than 1,000 newly recorded cases of female genital mutilation”

      I bet there were a lot more more recorded cases of male genital mutilation. We should stop that too.

      • Inspector General

        You really should look up FGM and see the misery it causes. Hardly comparable to circumcision….

        • Jon Sorensen

          I agree FGM is worse, but all genital mutilation of children must be stopped.

  • Not too many options available really.

    There is communitarianism, “which allows each faith community (or non-faith community for that matter) its own version of public space … But communitarianism means the further disintegration of the cultural system of the nation as a whole. The phrase “the community” must signify first and foremost the national community, which is the form humanity has taken under Providence in this piece of earth … For an immigrant population with a peculiar (in the non-pejorative sense) religious and, in part, ethical system, that will take considerable energies of adaptation. It is, it would seem, unwise to deflect its members from that primary task. On the other hand, a distinctive contribution by Muslims will mean their maintenance of whatever in their own customs and practices is noble and of good report.”

    Is this at all possible?

    Another response to Islam is the adoption of secular liberalism. “By privatising religious aspiration, the public square can be cleared of all religious claims from whatever quarter. This also comes with a hefty price tag. It means the increasing exhaustion of the moral capital of the culture, which derives from its historic (Judaeo-Christian) patrimony. It entails the shrinking of the metaphysical imagination in public life, which will be unable to advert to the spiritual dimension of human existence. The legal establishment of secularism would amount to a declaration that agnosticism has become the (anti-)religion of the state.”

    And this is the liberal-democratic route so favoured by … well … liberals.

    Another response is “recovery of the Judaeo-Christian tradition as what is most foundationally form-giving in English society and culture, while allowing that, on grounds of conscience, there are individuals and groups who cannot make that tradition fully their own. Freedom of conscience can and should be balanced against the interests of a particular historic society as a whole.

    The last is the only viable, sustainable choice but it’s unlikely it will be made. It’s the route favoured by President Putin and look how he is being misrepresented.

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/08/the-challenge-of-secularization.html

    (Interesting website by the way)

  • Phil R

    This is an interesting

    It seems even Danjo might not pass the tolerance test judging by his comments below.

    http://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/rob-slane-hold-your-tongue-or-we-will-set-the-law-on-you/

    • Inspector General

      An interesting site, Phil. Might provide a new home for the Inspectorate should the Inspector’s work start to disappear from his usual domicile…

      • Phil R

        It is one of the very best

      • Lol … Jack is sure the women will respond most positively to your opinions on them.
        Are your comments disappearing? This would be most unusual as in 5 years Jack is unaware of any deletions of posts by welcomed commenters.

    • DanJ0

      It’s curious that you periodically misrepresent me as a totalitarian when it suits your purpose but on this thread I seem to be tolerant and liberal despite my views on liberty not changing. That’s when you’re not misrepresenting me by saying I’m pursuing some sort of utopia [1], or advocating a society of unfettered evil/selfishness, or some other such nonsense. Sheesh.

      [1] Lol. Such profound misunderstanding of the very basics there.

      • Phil R

        My point was that if, as i suspect, even you would censured, then we now really are close to the end of liberty

  • Dreadnaught

    We have had law passed upon us that means that if just one person feels ‘offended’ they can cause a person to be arrested. We cannot point to a vile ideology in protest at being alien to our culture and corrosive to social cohesion without fear of being murdered or vilified or hauled into court accused for fermenting hatred of a religion and its followers. Yet when it comes to the crunch, first to support the Muslims in the ‘protection of freedom of religion’ are the left-wing Christians, Greens and Trots.
    The Govenors of Christianity UK has stood by and watched the genocide of their faith in the Middle East and done half of one percent of bugger all.
    They are in denial of their own impotency to rally their Faith and gutless to stand against the onslaught of Islam in their own back yard.
    Pointing the finger at humanistic atheists is a travesty of the truth: it may make you feel better as a group, just as it must have the early Xtians in the Arena, pushing and shoving so as not to be the one at the front of the group as the lions weighed their options.
    Its those martyrs today’s leaders of the Faith are abandoning. They know exactly in which direction the finger of blame should be pointing; But it is easier to blame anyone but themselves.

    • Inspector General

      Magnificent rant, Dredders, but one point if the Inspector may. Humanist atheists have done as much damage to our Christianity derived culture as the worst of treacherous PC politicians as well you know!

      • Dreadnaught

        I don’t deny that many who ‘do not do religion’ would try and ban it. But many more are realists and call themselves secularists which safeguards the space for religionists to carry on without hindrance. Then there is Islam which would have us all wiped out or convert. Thanx for the comp anyways IG – it was a comp wasn’t it? 🙂

        • Inspector General

          Not the point, old thing. Secular atheists greatest achievement was the abortion act. It was after that that alien immigration really took off. There was a gap, you see, left by those dead foetus’ that never grew up. And the Marxists out to destroy this island nation took full advantage of that…

          • Interesting history to abortion law which is summarised here:

            http://www.efc.org.uk/young_people/facts_about_abortion/uk_abortion_law.html

            One detects an all too familiar pattern. One cannot compromise with evil and seek to use it to achieve some supposed good as its appetite is insatiable.
            :

          • James M

            But that could never have passed, if Christians had not been so demoralised and disorganised and confused as to be unable to present a solid opposition to it. The Dead Baby Act of 1967 was possible because the Churches were decrepit. Each step since then had been a further development of the logic that made the 1967 DBA possible. A Church that is so weak spiritually that it cannot stand up for the most vulnerable members of society, needs either to repent of its unbelief and cowardice, or shut up shop entirely. As things now stand, it merely causes confusion. There are times one hates Christianity, for being so ineffectual. It is contemptible.

          • David

            I agree. We will only expand The Kingdom when we are true to God’s Word and refuse to compromise His clear instructions. But Churches have spent decades attempting to win cheap popularity through compromise, through stepping backwards, which simply never works but merely shrinks Kingdom influence within society. Generalising, we have been badly led.

          • Jon Sorensen

            It’s amazing you hand full of Secular atheists in the 60s managed to get this through in a Christian majority nations. Did all the Christians abstain to vote, did they vote for the act or did atheists rig the vote?

          • Dreadnaught

            Ah but, Ah, but, Ah but – You missed a golden opportunity here Iggy to put the jolly old Timpson into thos pesky pink haired Feministas who turned out in force (when it wasn’t raining) to drive this one home.

      • Jon Sorensen

        “Humanist atheists have done as much damage to our Christianity derived culture…”
        We have now identified the true enemy of the state.

    • chiefofsinners

      In the area of religious belief a person’s behaviour has to be threatening, rather than just abusive or insulting, in order for them to have committed an offence.
      As of 2013 the term ‘insulting’ has been removed altogether from section 5 of the public order act. This was a result of a campaign by the Christian Institute.
      And you don’t ferment hatred, you foment it.

      • Dreadnaught

        and you talk crap

        • chiefofsinners

          I seem to bring out the best in you, Naughtie.

          • (Ahem) Naughty … unless you were referring to Jim Naughtie.

          • chiefofsinners

            No, Naughtie as in friendly shortened form of Dreadnaught. It pays to be jovial when building cameraderie with these chaps. ‘Twould be unseemly to suggest he was naughty.

          • Ah … Jack was being obtuse. Good luck with the camaraderie, Sir.

          • chiefofsinners

            It is important not to offend people. You can be arrested for that, apparently…

  • Has it all gone too far, Jack asks. In 1969 Joseph Ratzinger commented about the future of the Catholic Church and his views were included in his ” Faith and the Future” published in 2009.

    What he wrote applies to all Christian churches:

    “The church will become small and will have to start afresh more or less from the beginning.

    She will no longer be able to inhabit many of the edifices she built in prosperity. As the number of her adherents diminishes . . . she will lose many of her social privileges. . . As a small society, [the Church] will make much bigger demands on the initiative of her individual members….

    It will be hard-going for the Church, for the process of crystallization and clarification will cost her much valuable energy. It will make her poor and cause her to become the Church of the meek . . . The process will be long and wearisome as was the road from the false progressivism on the eve of the French Revolution — when a bishop might be thought smart if he made fun of dogmas and even insinuated that the existence of God was by no means certain . . . But when the trial of this sifting is past, a great power will flow from a more spiritualized and simplified Church.

    Men in a totally planned world will find themselves unspeakably lonely. If they have completely lost sight of God, they will feel the whole horror of their poverty. Then they will discover the little flock of believers as something wholly new. They will discover it as a hope that is meant for them, an answer for which they have always been searching in secret.

    And so it seems certain to me that the Church is facing very hard times. The real crisis has scarcely begun. We will have to count on terrific upheavals. But I am equally certain about what will remain at the end: not the Church of the political cult, which is dead already, but the Church of faith. She may well no longer be the dominant social power to the extent that she was until recently; but she will enjoy a fresh blossoming and be seen as man’s home, where he will find life and hope beyond death.”

    Yes, continue the fight against the onslaught of secular paganism in the public square. However, maybe the Church should now be focussing on equipping its members to survive and hold true to the Gospel in these times of trial and sifting.

    • David

      Yes those were wise and prescient words that, as you say, applies to all Christian Churches.
      Also I agree that we need a combined strategy of continuing to resist the onslaught of secular paganism in the public square whilst creating “lifeboats” travelling towards future times carrying the true Gospel and Doctrines of God’s Truth. Their role would be analogous to that of the monastic movement, after the fall of the western Roman Empire; then Europe was attacked from the south by a youthful Islam, the east by Germanic barbarian tribes and the north by Vikings. It was the monasteries that acted as safe repositories of western intellectual and religious truth. In the east the Eastern Holy Roman Empire kept precious the intellectual gems of pre-Christian Greek thought, until it fell to Islam, late, in the 15 th C when its fleeing scholars went to Italy, and again the Church took in that heritage.
      It may even be that experiments need to set up, for some communities to live apart, like the Amish who are successful at maintaining observance of their particular understanding of God’s will for our lives.

  • James M

    Mo, unlike Curly and the other one, was a false prophet, an antichrist, and a contradictor of Christ. What part of this do the clergy not understand ?

    • David

      The majority of clergy are, like much of the population, brainwashed by the left-liberal cultural lie of cultural relativism, driven forward by the government using the compliant media. The creed of unthinking, undiscriminating, uncritical tolerance is its corollary, and is of course an attempt to keep that lid on our rapidly fracturing society for a bit longer. So many clergy no longer believe that Christianity alone has Truth. Clergy allow societal norms to trump faith, and so are weak, inadequate teachers. Faith in Christ is seen as but one option, one possible route towards God. Because they are so unconvincing few new converts result. The process represents a circular downward spiral separating western society from its intellectual and spiritual coherence, ultimately to its further fragmentation and destruction, at least as a capable vehicle for delivering the common good.

      • James60498 .

        The only debate I might have with you is whether the government is pushing it with the support of the compliant media, or whether the media, at least some of it, is the driving force. I am not sure of the answer but don’t think it’s clearly one or the other.

        Otherwise that’s an excellent post.

        • David

          I agree with your point. Many including me assume that the government is encouraging the media, when it may be, in part at least, the other way around. It is probably a two way street, a circular causation process, or a positive feedback loop, if you like Systems Theory.

        • Sirbastion

          Indeed, but consider also a third option of a more powerful agent driving both the government and media.

          • James60498 .

            I think you are right with that suggestion. In fact I am sure that you are. If it is not so, then perversions like “gay marriage” would not have become legal in so many different countries under so many different governments.

            However I also think that the “third entity”, perhaps we should call it ‘the parasite’, has wormed its way more fully into a major media outlet than it has into the Conservative Party which still retains a small element of opposition, even if most of it is on the backbenches.

          • Sirbastion

            I hear you. The recently announced Global Goals is testament to what you’re saying.

  • len

    The Church must get itself back on the One True Foundation which is Christ alone then and only then can it speak with the authority Christ delegated to HIS Church.
    There are many false religions (and some branches of Christianity come under this description) who seem to have created their own ‘stairway to heaven’ much as they did when building the Tower of Babel on the plain of Shinar..
    God has only one plan for the redemption of the human race and that is through the atonement of Jesus Christ for the sins of mankind on the cross at Calvary all other ways to approach God are false paths which will lead to destruction…Prideful man finds it difficult (if not impossible ) to accept that they can do nothing to save themselves and must rely on Jesus Christ as their Saviour(this is the offence of the Cross)
    It is pride that led to the fall of man and it is humility which puts one on the path to accepting Christ as ones saviour once the Holy Spirit is able to break through the layers of deception which has blinded the individual from perceiving God`s Truth….

    • David

      Amen to that.

  • Martin

    What do we expect from people who think that British values are when we agree with them?

  • Murti Bing

    I agree with much of what is being said here. I also worry about the direction our country is taking, indeed the world is taking. The Pope spoke to congress today. He talked about migrants, climate change, the death penalty, marriage and a number of other very worthy subjects. What he seems not to have mentioned (unless I am mistaken) is the systematic eradication of Christians and Christianity in the middle east that is taking place day by day, right now. If the Pope cannot stand for the defence of Christianity when speaking to the assembled ranks of US political power, what hope do a few poor, humble bishops have in the UK?

    And then, look at our media. Christianity is mocked and derided on a daily basis. Any attempt to respond is regarded as proselytising and shoved aside. Organised societies exist whose sole aim is to remove Christianity completely from the public sphere – and it is always Christianity. Any word said against the RoP is immediately slammed down as a racist ‘phobia’!

    I look at the picture above and it worries me. These people are out to kill. I heard it on the Today programme just the other day – a school pupil, about 15 years old, somewhere up north, was asked if he would go and fight for ISIS. Of course he would, he said. But you’d be killing Muslims, the reporter said. No I wouldn’t, he replied. If I’m killing them, they’re not Muslims, are they? What is the extension of this? It’s OK to kill those who are not Muslims? Put that question to the people in the picture above. What would their answer be?

    The Bible says, ‘If God be for us, then who can be against us?’

    The answer, right now, seems to be just about everyone.

  • mollysdad

    David Cameron is also an extremist because of his intolerance of Christianity, in that it is different from his religion of homosexualism.

  • Revd Robert West

    ‘Mutual respect and tolerance for different faiths and beliefs”? This is an oxymoron. Different belief systems have different standards as to what they can bear with and what they can approve of. The formula is a kind of a multi-faith mish-mash where we all pretend that everyone is so good and lovely, when, by our own very differing values, they are not. It is an attempt, in other words, to censor what you say and think. Is this really a British value?

    The root of it comes from the schools where they have been teaching that Islam and Christianity are compatilbe even comparable religions, the “religions of Abraham thesis”. We must respect and tolerate Mohammed, and his followers must respect and tolerate what they see as three gods and idolatry. Could Abraham really have had such different faiths? According to Jesus he had one faith, ‘Abraham rejoiced to see My Day; he saw it and was glad.” (John 8: 56). The criteria of ‘mutual respect and tolerance for different faiths and beliefs’ will be used to suppress giving a true state of the picture in order to promote Islam, especially in the schools and in the public sphere.

  • Anton

    Tolerance PERHAPS, depending on what politics is associated with different faiths? Mutual respect, no way. I respect people, because they are in the image of God; as part of that respect I respect their freedom to hold differing beliefs from me. But respect those beliefs themselves? That is to ask me to respect communism and Nazism among other things. Is that really what this government wants?